Ok... I see... you're an expert.

I will shut up then... I'm just a poor ignorant that try since years to reduce huge discrepancies (up to 20%) in some plane real flight datas (D520 as an exemple)...

I undestand completely how you feel, IceFire, and you re probbably right- it isn't worth it.
I remember you from other discussions elsewhere, where you always kept a correct and polite tone. No offence has been meant with what I wrote, and I certainly called the plane performances grotesque, not you.

There is quite a lot to be found in the net about the I16. I am sending you a good link to a russian page:

http://i16fighter.narod.ru/mods/mods.htm

Only parts of the page have got an english version, regretably not the structural and flight data. In spite of the cyrilic alphabet, I am sure you are going to recognize the weight values, empty and takeoff, in the lines 9 and 10 of a table for the different I16 variants on this page, as well as climb to height numbers at the lines 17 and 18. The site is very comprehensive, going to such details as the armament weights, bullet weights , muzzle velocities, etc, etc. With ammunition and structural strenghtening, the weight difference of mg and gun armed versions is about 100 kg.
Cannon armed development of type 24 was type 28, with the same M63 engine, so you can compare these two.
Type 27 had the less powerful M62.
The weights given at the page are somewhat on the low side - other sources give an empty weight of up to 1490 and loaded one of 1915-1941 kg for the type 24.
In any case, Loaded weight of the game type 24 is about 1870 kg, if I remember well- check in the Il2 Compare , please.

Variant armament is given in the third line from below.

Well you can be assures that whatever performance numbers Oleg uses you will find someone that can offer contradicting evedence, from who knows where (or source).

The data is not from somewhere, but from the russian book

М. Маслов "Истребитель И-16" - M.Maslov 'I16 Fighter'

Mr. Maslov used in all probability the same sources as Oleg does too -
'Samoletostroenie v SSSR. 1917-1945 gg.' published by the TsAGI- Soviet central aerodynamical institute, and the 'History Of Plane Construction in USSR', by V.B. Shavrov.
If you like that more, i could give you an excerpt from the later book, too.

Even without that much reading, one who has an idea of the WWI plane performances would recognize the 21m/s climb ( or 24 as it earlier was) as wholly unrealistic number.
Contemporaries of I16 type 24 with the engines of about 900-1000 hp had climbs of about 15 m/s at most. For the climbs over 20m/s an 1500 HP + engine was needed.And that means La5/7, or 109G, etc. The value is typical for the mid and late war planes.

And I ll be surprised if all this changes your opinion :)

Thank you for the link. I'm always interested in new data (or at least new to me). So...did anyone bring this up with Oleg....back a few years ago when it still mattered? Its still good to have more than one source of data if possible..maybe Oleg has conflicting data. Where does this come from BTW?

i dont think having published data from various contradictory sources is a problem, or that it justifies for oleg not to openly quote his BoB aircraft performance charts and the sources he used.

amongst the data sources available some will be more accurate, and based on direct performance testing in a controlled environment (like using captured aircraft, factory performance testing, contruction plans and blue prints etc), and some of these reference texts will stand out as being more comprehensive and reliable then others. in the 50 yrs since ww2 these historical aircraft performances have been analyzed, compared, and even new performance tests have been made with historical aircraft or reproductions built.

the same problem of, "what data can you trust", exists in every scientific discipline, and there is fairly simple ways to cut through the accumulated evidence in an objective way and source some "close to accurate" numbers, these SHOULD then be reproducible in a SIMULATOR on a computer if it claims an accurate flight model.

right now some of the aircraft behavior is down right silly, the numbers for the i-16 being a perfect example. the aim of having disclosure of flight performance characteristics in BoB, with a similar program like il2-compare, is to avoid those extreme "errors" (which in case of the i-16 were probably deliberate)

Didn't Oleg say he couldn't say where he got his data from, at least for the Soviet a/c > non discloser restraint.

Sales of the game in Japan.

It's all about money.

Well, Oleg said too, that the Il Compare being inacurate and meant to help newbies only, only way to get the performance numbers is to fly the tests yourself. Meaning 1C hasn't got the performance numbers of the planes they released? Got them but won't tell us? Or that 1C signed non a disclosure restraint with themselves? :)))))))))

Cube , in his threads 4-5 years ago already mentions the TsAGI book as the Oleg's bible.
The statement you quote is another mystification-you won't find 21 m/s as the climb rate for I16 anywhere- if you find a source claiming this , i ll pay you a dinner. And I ll pay you two if you find 24 m/s as it once has been in the game.

The data is from the russian book

М. Маслов "Истребитель И-16" - M.Maslov 'I16 Fighter'

No doubt he used the TsAGI book as the main data source. ( See a post above)

Cube wrote an excelent series of posts 5 years ago:

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthread...page=0&fpart=1

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthread...page=0&fpart=9

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthread...page=0&fpart=1

http://www.simhq.com/forum/ubbthread...=0&Search=true

I did write to Oleg something like 2 years ago, and wrote some posts on the UBI and some other fori.